| lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
|
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2023 15:11:19 +0100
From: Stefano Garzarella <sgarzare@...hat.com>
To: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>
Cc: Arseniy Krasnov <avkrasnov@...utedevices.com>,
Stefan Hajnoczi <stefanha@...hat.com>, "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>, Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>, Jason Wang <jasowang@...hat.com>,
Bobby Eshleman <bobby.eshleman@...edance.com>, kvm@...r.kernel.org, virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kernel@...rdevices.ru,
oxffffaa@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v5 2/3] virtio/vsock: send credit update during
setting SO_RCVLOWAT
On Thu, Nov 30, 2023 at 08:58:58AM -0500, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
>On Thu, Nov 30, 2023 at 04:43:34PM +0300, Arseniy Krasnov wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 30.11.2023 16:42, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
>> > On Thu, Nov 30, 2023 at 04:08:39PM +0300, Arseniy Krasnov wrote:
>> >> Send credit update message when SO_RCVLOWAT is updated and it is bigger
>> >> than number of bytes in rx queue. It is needed, because 'poll()' will
>> >> wait until number of bytes in rx queue will be not smaller than
>> >> SO_RCVLOWAT, so kick sender to send more data. Otherwise mutual hungup
>> >> for tx/rx is possible: sender waits for free space and receiver is
>> >> waiting data in 'poll()'.
>> >>
>> >> Signed-off-by: Arseniy Krasnov <avkrasnov@...utedevices.com>
>> >> ---
>> >> Changelog:
>> >> v1 -> v2:
>> >> * Update commit message by removing 'This patch adds XXX' manner.
>> >> * Do not initialize 'send_update' variable - set it directly during
>> >> first usage.
>> >> v3 -> v4:
>> >> * Fit comment in 'virtio_transport_notify_set_rcvlowat()' to 80 chars.
>> >> v4 -> v5:
>> >> * Do not change callbacks order in transport structures.
>> >>
>> >> drivers/vhost/vsock.c | 1 +
>> >> include/linux/virtio_vsock.h | 1 +
>> >> net/vmw_vsock/virtio_transport.c | 1 +
>> >> net/vmw_vsock/virtio_transport_common.c | 27 +++++++++++++++++++++++++
>> >> net/vmw_vsock/vsock_loopback.c | 1 +
>> >> 5 files changed, 31 insertions(+)
>> >>
>> >> diff --git a/drivers/vhost/vsock.c b/drivers/vhost/vsock.c
>> >> index f75731396b7e..4146f80db8ac 100644
>> >> --- a/drivers/vhost/vsock.c
>> >> +++ b/drivers/vhost/vsock.c
>> >> @@ -451,6 +451,7 @@ static struct virtio_transport vhost_transport = {
>> >> .notify_buffer_size = virtio_transport_notify_buffer_size,
>> >>
>> >> .read_skb = virtio_transport_read_skb,
>> >> + .notify_set_rcvlowat = virtio_transport_notify_set_rcvlowat
>> >> },
>> >>
>> >> .send_pkt = vhost_transport_send_pkt,
>> >> diff --git a/include/linux/virtio_vsock.h b/include/linux/virtio_vsock.h
>> >> index ebb3ce63d64d..c82089dee0c8 100644
>> >> --- a/include/linux/virtio_vsock.h
>> >> +++ b/include/linux/virtio_vsock.h
>> >> @@ -256,4 +256,5 @@ void virtio_transport_put_credit(struct virtio_vsock_sock *vvs, u32 credit);
>> >> void virtio_transport_deliver_tap_pkt(struct sk_buff *skb);
>> >> int virtio_transport_purge_skbs(void *vsk, struct sk_buff_head *list);
>> >> int virtio_transport_read_skb(struct vsock_sock *vsk, skb_read_actor_t read_actor);
>> >> +int virtio_transport_notify_set_rcvlowat(struct vsock_sock *vsk, int val);
>> >> #endif /* _LINUX_VIRTIO_VSOCK_H */
>> >> diff --git a/net/vmw_vsock/virtio_transport.c b/net/vmw_vsock/virtio_transport.c
>> >> index af5bab1acee1..8007593a3a93 100644
>> >> --- a/net/vmw_vsock/virtio_transport.c
>> >> +++ b/net/vmw_vsock/virtio_transport.c
>> >> @@ -539,6 +539,7 @@ static struct virtio_transport virtio_transport = {
>> >> .notify_buffer_size = virtio_transport_notify_buffer_size,
>> >>
>> >> .read_skb = virtio_transport_read_skb,
>> >> + .notify_set_rcvlowat = virtio_transport_notify_set_rcvlowat
>> >> },
>> >>
>> >> .send_pkt = virtio_transport_send_pkt,
>> >> diff --git a/net/vmw_vsock/virtio_transport_common.c b/net/vmw_vsock/virtio_transport_common.c
>> >> index f6dc896bf44c..1cb556ad4597 100644
>> >> --- a/net/vmw_vsock/virtio_transport_common.c
>> >> +++ b/net/vmw_vsock/virtio_transport_common.c
>> >> @@ -1684,6 +1684,33 @@ int virtio_transport_read_skb(struct vsock_sock *vsk, skb_read_actor_t recv_acto
>> >> }
>> >> EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(virtio_transport_read_skb);
>> >>
>> >> +int virtio_transport_notify_set_rcvlowat(struct vsock_sock *vsk,
>> >> int val)
>> >> +{
>> >> + struct virtio_vsock_sock *vvs = vsk->trans;
>> >> + bool send_update;
>> >> +
>> >> + spin_lock_bh(&vvs->rx_lock);
>> >> +
>> >> + /* If number of available bytes is less than new SO_RCVLOWAT value,
>> >> + * kick sender to send more data, because sender may sleep in
>> >> its
>> >> + * 'send()' syscall waiting for enough space at our side.
>> >> + */
>> >> + send_update = vvs->rx_bytes < val;
>> >> +
>> >> + spin_unlock_bh(&vvs->rx_lock);
>> >> +
>> >> + if (send_update) {
>> >> + int err;
>> >> +
>> >> + err = virtio_transport_send_credit_update(vsk);
>> >> + if (err < 0)
>> >> + return err;
>> >> + }
>> >> +
>> >> + return 0;
>> >> +}
>> >
>> >
>> > I find it strange that this will send a credit update
>> > even if nothing changed since this was called previously.
>> > I'm not sure whether this is a problem protocol-wise,
>> > but it certainly was not envisioned when the protocol was
>> > built. WDYT?
>>
>> >From virtio spec I found:
>>
>> It is also valid to send a VIRTIO_VSOCK_OP_CREDIT_UPDATE packet without previously receiving a
>> VIRTIO_VSOCK_OP_CREDIT_REQUEST packet. This allows communicating updates any time a change
>> in buffer space occurs.
>> So I guess there is no limitations to send such type of packet, e.g. it is not
>> required to be a reply for some another packet. Please, correct me if im wrong.
>>
>> Thanks, Arseniy
>
>
>Absolutely. My point was different - with this patch it is possible
>that you are not adding any credits at all since the previous
>VIRTIO_VSOCK_OP_CREDIT_UPDATE.
I think the problem we're solving here is that since as an optimization
we avoid sending the update for every byte we consume, but we put a
threshold, then we make sure we update the peer.
A credit update contains a snapshot and sending it the same as the
previous one should not create any problem.
My doubt now is that we only do this when we set RCVLOWAT , should we
also do something when we consume bytes to avoid the optimization we
have?
Stefano
Powered by blists - more mailing lists